Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Simkanin guilty of 29 counts of tax violations
Fort Worth Star-Telegram ^ | 1/8/2004 | Max Baker

Posted on 01/08/2004 5:56:20 AM PST by sinkspur

FORT WORTH - After deliberating for more than 13 hours over two days, a federal jury Wednesday convicted Bedford businessman and tax protester Richard Simkanin on 29 counts of violating U.S. income tax laws.

The jury of six men and six women delivered its verdict shortly after 8 p.m. They remained deadlocked on two counts within the indictment, leading U.S. District Judge John McBryde to declare a mistrial on those charges.

Simkanin stood silently with his hands behind his back, showing no emotion, as a court clerk read the 29 guilty verdicts. Some supporters in the courtroom dabbed their eyes; others glared at the judge.

Simkanin, 59, is scheduled to be sentenced April 30, Assistant U.S. Attorney David Jarvis said. He can get up to five years on each of the 25 felony counts and up to a year on each of the four misdemeanor charges.

"Justice was served, and we're pleased that the jury understood that no one is above the law," Jarvis said.

Arch McColl, the Dallas lawyer representing Simkanin, said his client was denied a fair trial because McBryde did not allow him to present key evidence on whether Social Security, Medicare and income taxes are voluntary.

McColl said he expects to win on appeal, but he added that it is time for Americans to pay attention to what happened in court.

"I'm terribly disappointed," McColl said. "It was not a fair trial in accordance with the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution that includes the fundamental right to present evidence on your own behalf."

Robert Schulz, founder of We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, a group that questions the validity of the nation's tax laws, told Simkanin's supporters that the defendant was prepared for the worst.

"His spirits are fine. His faith is strong," Schulz said.

This is the second time Simkanin has gone on trial. In November, McBryde declared a mistrial when jurors who deliberated for eight hours said that they were deadlocked and could not reach a unanimous verdict.

Simkanin is almost considered to be a political prisoner by groups that question the validity of the nation's tax laws. They contend that most Americans are not required to pay income taxes.

They are particularly hostile toward the Internal Revenue Service, an agency that, they say, is not an official government entity.

Simkanin's supporters came from around the country. They held a vigil at the courthouse, at one time praying in the hallway. They often gave him a thumbs-up gesture as he entered the courtroom. Once, Simkanin got a standing ovation.

During the trial, Simkanin testified that he didn't withhold employees' taxes for Medicare and Social Security benefits because his research did not produce a law showing that participation in the programs was mandatory.

But Simkanin backed away from some of his anti-government comments, saying they were a mistake. He once wrote to the U.S. Treasury secretary saying that he had repatriated himself from the United States to the "Republic of Texas."

When McColl tried to query witnesses on legal definitions of "employee" and "wages," McBryde cut him off. The judge told jurors they could not question the constitutionality of the tax code.

Prosecutors put 11 witnesses on the stand to show that Simkanin knew what he was doing when he stopped withholding and paying taxes. Under federal tax laws, ignorance of tax codes can be used as a legal defense.

Jurors sent out seven notes during their 11 hours of deliberations Wednesday.

They asked for legal definitions and whether they had to review evidence on who does have to pay taxes.

McColl said his client's company, Arrow Custom Plastics, is in deep financial trouble because of his fights with the government. Simkanin has been in jail since June.

Simkanin was convicted on 10 felony counts of failing to withhold about $139,000 in taxes from employees' wages and 15 felony counts of filing false tax refund claims for about $235,000.

He also was found guilty of four misdemeanor counts of not filing individual income tax returns from 1998 to 2001. Simkanin had an estimated gross income of about $410,000 during those years, according to the indictment.

Dottie Harrison, a Simkanin supporter from Houston, said his allies will continue to fight.

"I'm in shock, but the determined energy everyone feels to overturn this injustice will be a catalyst that will expose the entire IRS fraud," she said.


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: bobschulz; dicksimkanin; givemeliberty; schulz; simkanin; taxhonesty; taxprotest; taxprotester; wethepeople
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 321-334 next last
To: sinkspur
Geezer is simply spamming the thread with the agit-prop basis for the so-called regulatatory 'law' on this issue.
No one disputes that they exist. Their constitutionality is disputed.
161 posted on 01/08/2004 11:26:39 AM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but FRs flying monkey squad brings out the Rickenbacher in me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"the so-called regulatatory 'law' on this issue."

It's obvious you don't have a clue here. Geezer and I have been citing the US Code. Geezer has also cited SCOTUS and other court decisions. None of these are "regulatory" law.

Your other remarks on what you imagine to be court procedures also make it abundantly obvious you don't know what the heck you are talking about.
162 posted on 01/08/2004 11:31:01 AM PST by Hon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Ref: "The 14th authorizes an income tax, not withholding."

Thanks for pointing me correctly.

You are right. SOTUS affirms the 14th. I perceive that withholding is an expedient administrative process for FICA and Income Tax withholding hitched a ride. Trust funds became an evil to the employer as a result. Employers do become involuntary 'agents' and may be held personally liable by the piercing the 'corporate veil' if necessary.

The IRS is also responsible for administrating Social Security's Section 218; another mess from Congress dating back to the inception of FICA.

Simkanin probably had things explained to him as if he were a six year old by multiple Revenue Officers, Agents and IRS Management. They just want to close the case. Simkanin chose to test the system in the courts.

I am in frequent contact with my Reps begging them to simplify the mess. I am appalled that this mess is legal. We must endure taxation. Therefore, we should encourage our Reps to simplify and lessen the burden on individuals and businesses.
163 posted on 01/08/2004 11:33:12 AM PST by ASA.Ranger (A fulfilling New Year to all!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
See #127.
164 posted on 01/08/2004 11:33:59 AM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but FRs flying monkey squad brings out the Rickenbacher in me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: tpaine; Gargantua
No one disputes that they exist.

tpaine, meet Gargantua.

Their constitutionality is disputed.

If so, Simkanin can argue that on appeal; it's not a jury question. But the SCOTUS has upheld the constitutionality of withholding.

165 posted on 01/08/2004 11:34:53 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Their constitutionality is disputed.

Only by the Schiffs, Schulzs and various tax protest groups.

And tpaine and those who don't like the way the Supreme Court ruled on such stuff.

166 posted on 01/08/2004 11:40:34 AM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

Geezer is simply spamming the thread with the agit-prop basis for the so-called regulatatory 'law' on this issue.

What regulatory law is that? The Public Law (that which has been enacted into law by Congress) as regards the income tax and witholding thereof has been held to be quite constitutional and to be enforcable upon the individual citizen:

No one disputes that they exist.

I would hope not for they are to be found in the public record in US Statutes and organized in the published volumes US Code Title 23.

Though the evidence of this thread shows there are many who would pretend to doubt the existence of such laws:

spacewarp: "because they couldn't find a criminal code he was in violation of, so they just charged him with failure to comply."

gargantua: "Does this alleged but unsubstantiated law even exist? "

sopwith: "Does this alleged but unsubstantiated law even exist?"
Okay, you say (pretend to know...?) that it does exist. Chapter and verse of the Code, please."

 

Their constitutionality is disputed.

Only by those in denial, certainly not by the Supreme Court.

BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

Stratton's Independence, LTD. v. Howbert(1913), 231 U.S. 399:

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.(1916), 240 U.S. 103:

COOK v. TAIT, 265 U.S. 47 (1924)

 

BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124,136 (1929)

Lucas v. Earl(1930), 281 U.S. 111:

U.S. v. CONSTANTINE, 296 U.S. 287 (1935)

Charles C. Stewart Machine Co. v. Davis (1937), 301 U.S. 548:


167 posted on 01/08/2004 11:50:24 AM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: ASA.Ranger
"I am in frequent contact with my Reps begging them to simplify the mess. I am appalled that this mess is legal."

There is a real catch-22 here. If the tax laws were more simple, people would complain that they are too vague. What is the meaning of "income"? they would ask.

When the laws try to cover every jot and tittle, the same people complain that they are just too complicated.

It is the tax evaders themselves who have forced the laws to become so complicated. Without them the laws could be much more simple.
168 posted on 01/08/2004 11:51:27 AM PST by Hon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Sink, if you look at the facts of the case, you will see very simply that the government had what could arguably be a strong case if it was presented fairly. If it was presented as fact with law being cited and the rules of a fair and impartial judiciary. If they had presented that case, and won, they would have eliminated the "tax protester" movement once and for all, because they would have presented in open court their case. But, when you start to look at the way they went about it, and see that they did back-room deals, judge shopping and practiced judicial abuse, then you start to realize that they had no real case. The whole thing falls apart. So, since I don't buy Schulz's stuff, and you seem to have a personal vendetta against him, then how about you listen to someone who has the right dog in the fight. I don't like taxes any more than anyone else. I pay them. I put Under Protest on them in the vague hope that some day I may be able to get something back because I didn't quietly surrender my freedom. Our tax burden has become worse and worse each year. We get the occasional tax break, which is nice that they graciously allow us to have back a small pittance each year of what we earn.

There's a reason there's witholding. And it should be stopped. And if there's a violation of the constitution, they may stop it. The reason is simple. If every person who earned money had to send a check to the feds each week or month to give Caeser what is Caeser's, then there would be a revolt in about 6-10 weeks. If we could cut the costs of production by eliminating the income tax, we'd probably be able to break even with a 10-11% flat tax. That's much better, but still not good enough.

We need to eliminate the waste, fraud and abuse at all levels of government. And that doesn't come easy. It's "advanced citizenship". If we could eliminate 50% of the fraud, waste and abuse in 75% of the government, we'd probably be able to knock that 10-11% down to 1-2%. If we could eliminate 10% of the extra-constitutional government we could actually be past all the income tax. The problem is that it's ingrained and the attitude that they are the masters and we are the slaves runs very deep in government. And the abuses of this judge, the DOJ prosecutors and the IRS agents is just one more sign of a very corrupt, rotten to the core, government that needs major overhaul.

Paul
169 posted on 01/08/2004 11:53:42 AM PST by spacewarp (Visit the American Patriot Party and stay a while. http://www.patriotparty.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: spacewarp
"But, when you start to look at the way they went about it, and see that they did back-room deals, judge shopping and practiced judicial abuse, then you start to realize that they had no real case."

LOL!
170 posted on 01/08/2004 11:56:24 AM PST by Hon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: spacewarp
Sink, if you look at the facts of the case, you will see very simply that the government had what could arguably be a strong case if it was presented fairly. If it was presented as fact with law being cited and the rules of a fair and impartial judiciary.

Fair? Facts? Law?

The "facts" were presented, with 13 witnesses who testified that Simkanin had been told he was in violation of the law. I don't know who those witnesses were, but one of them was likely somebody from the IRS who told him that he had to obey the law and what that law was.

A "fair" representation of the case for the tax protesters would have been to put the IRS on the stand, to put the IRS on trial, so that Simkanin and his sycophantic, Manson-like followers could boo and hiss at every utterance from them.

You are angry about the tax code, and you should be. But you have never ONCE mentioned your own congressman as a potential object of your ire.

You want withholding eliminated? GET CONGRESS TO DO IT!

You want a flat tax? PUSH YOUR CONGRESSMAN TO SPONSOR IT!

Turning the courtroom into a circus tent makes those who have legitimate complaints look like clowns.

171 posted on 01/08/2004 12:05:00 PM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer; Hon; sinkspur; yall
Geezer is simply spamming the thread with the agit-prop basis for the so-called regulatatory 'law' on this issue.

What regulatory law is that? The Public Law (that which has been enacted into law by Congress) as regards the income tax and witholding thereof has been held to be quite constitutional and to be enforcable upon the individual citizen:

That issue exactly is what is disputed, and is what the defendant wanted to tell the jury..
That is the point of this thread.
No one disputes that these 'laws' exist.

I would hope not for they are to be found in the public record in US Statutes and organized in the published volumes US Code Title 23. Though the evidence of this thread shows there are many who would pretend to doubt the existence of such laws:
spacewarp: "because they couldn't find a criminal code he was in violation of, so they just charged him with failure to comply."
gargantua: "Does this alleged but unsubstantiated law even exist? "
sopwith: "Does this alleged but unsubstantiated law even exist?" Okay, you say (pretend to know...?) that it does exist. Chapter and verse of the Code, please."
  Their constitutionality is disputed. Only by those in denial, certainly not by the Supreme Court.

Many, if not most responsible people admit that the income tax 'codes' are insane.
Those who defend them are the ones in denial.

172 posted on 01/08/2004 12:07:01 PM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but FRs flying monkey squad brings out the Rickenbacher in me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: dljordan
Yes, resistance to tyranny is always foolish

Not necessarily! IMHO, one has to avoid lose-lose situations: Do not kick a grizzly in the butt. ;~)

173 posted on 01/08/2004 12:08:33 PM PST by verity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: spacewarp

There's a reason there's witholding.

Agreed

BARAL v. UNITED STATES, 172 F. 3d 918; affirmed SCOTUS 98-1667 (Feb 22, 2000)

And it should be stopped.

So should all taxes collected on income or wages, but not be cause the Congress lacks the power to do so, but rather because there are better methods of taxation more conducive to a free nation:

Thomas Hobbes from Leviathan

And if there's a violation of the constitution, they may stop it.

Big if, especially as witholding has been upheld by the Supreme Court numerous times, and always upheld where the liability of the employer to remit such witholding on behalf of employees is in question.

The basis of witholding as a method of tax collection simply is incontestable.

PACIFIC INS. CO. v. SOULE, 74 U.S. 433 (1868),7 Wall. 433


174 posted on 01/08/2004 12:10:41 PM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
As you surely know, Simkanin knew he was in violation of the law. He bragged about his defiance.

Simkanin didn't withhold though the US code clearly requires him to do so and the law has been repeatedly upheld as Constitutional.

Simkanin tried to collect a quarter of a million dollars in refunds for taxes he never filed. Funny, none of the "tax protestors" ever mention that.

Simkanin is a crook who is finally on his way to jail. It is a victory of the rule of law. It is a victory for our system of representative government.

Many if not most of the leading "tax protestors" hate this country. They seek to destroy it by attacking our citizens' tax compliance, which is the envy of the world.

They are worse than just plain kooks or con artists. They certainly are not the "patriots" they claim to be.
175 posted on 01/08/2004 12:14:20 PM PST by Hon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer; sinkspur
Thank you very much for that detailed information Geezer. This is exactly what Sinkspur was avoiding either finding or admitting to not knowing off the top of his head (not knowing something is not necessarily bad, but not seeing that you don't is usually a very bad thing Sink.)

And the big $64,000 question.....

If in less than 1 day, Ancient_Geezer could find this caselaw and present it in this forum, then why couldn't the IRS present even 1/10th of this? The attitude is arrogance and abuse. Still a problem. Even if they are as right as possible about the law, their attitude and actions create a bitter problem that still must be addressed.

Paul
176 posted on 01/08/2004 12:16:13 PM PST by spacewarp (Visit the American Patriot Party and stay a while. http://www.patriotparty.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Hon; ancient_geezer
Again, thank you. Why is it you can find it and the IRS couldn't find it with both hands and a flashlight?

Why is it that the judge didn't insist that the IRS agents list the section of the code that closes that argument?

Why is it that the DOJ prosecutor didn't just stand up and read that one section of code, and put up just some of that case law provided a few minutes ago by Geezer?

Why do our government representatives believe that they are so far above us that they don't have to answer to us or follow the same rules they make us follow?

That's the main thing that gets me ticked off on this topic.

Paul
177 posted on 01/08/2004 12:21:37 PM PST by spacewarp (Visit the American Patriot Party and stay a while. http://www.patriotparty.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: spacewarp
"If in less than 1 day, Ancient_Geezer could find this caselaw and present it in this forum, then why couldn't the IRS present even 1/10th of this? The attitude is arrogance and abuse. Still a problem. Even if they are as right as possible about the law, their attitude and actions create a bitter problem that still must be addressed."

You don't know what you are talking about. The IRS explained the law to Simkanin numerous times. An IRS agent testified in the trial about his attempts to explain the law to Simkanin. He was one of many who tried.

Simkanin's own employees, including his accounts, explained the law to him. They showed it to him. They also testified to this in the trial.

And again, it isn't case law. It is in the US Code. It would take Simkanin or any idiot who can use the internet or read a book five seconds to find it.

Simkanin knew he was in violation. Do you think he tried to get a refund of $235,000 in taxes when he hadn't paid any, accidentally?
178 posted on 01/08/2004 12:22:23 PM PST by Hon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

Many, if not most responsible people admit that the income tax 'codes' are insane.

As a matter of personal opinion, yes.

As a matter of law, they exist, they are within the authority of Congress to enact, and they have been repeatedly upheld and found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court. From the first statute regarding income taxes the Courts have made it clear what must be done to remove these "insane" statutes.

Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586

  • "The central and controlling question in this case is whether the tax which was levied on the income, gains, and profits of the plaintiff in error, as set forth in the record, and by pretended virtue of the acts of Congress and parts of acts therein mentioned, is a direct tax."
  • "Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty."
  • "[W]henever the government has imposed a tax which it recognized as a direct tax, it has never been applied to any objects but real estate and slaves."
  • "If the laws here in question involved any wrong or unnecessary harshness, it was for Congress, or the people who make congresses, to see that the evil was corrected.
    The remedy does not lie with the judicial branch of the government."
  • MCCRAY v. U S, 195 U.S. 27 (1904)

     

    So get after your Congress critter's already, there is where both the problem and the solution lay. Not bust one's brains out against the brick wall of the Courts.

    Those who defend them are the ones in denial.

    Who is defending the income/payroll taxes? The law is what it is, change should be made, but the courts are not the answer to that. Legislation and Constitutional amendment are.

    John Linder (R Georgia) offers a comprehensive bill to kill all income and payroll taxes outright, and provide a IRS free replacement:

    H.R.25
    SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 01/7/2003)
    A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
    Refer:
    http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org

    I suggest you start putting your efforts into changing the law instead of railing against it to no end.

    179 posted on 01/08/2004 12:24:59 PM PST by ancient_geezer
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

    To: The Old Hoosier
    It is not the place of a jury to decide constitutionality. Not according to the constitution, anyway

    Correct. That decision is, ultimately, reserved to the USSC by the Constitution.

    Hopefully, this guy brought up any constitutional issues to the court during his trial, even if the court rejected them, so that they will be open to apellate review. Otherwise he's out of luck. IMO, all controversial (and even non controversial) legal actions should be set up to win on appeal, not at trial. This way a win at trial ends it but a loss still has the possibility of an ultimate win..

    180 posted on 01/08/2004 12:31:05 PM PST by templar
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


    Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
    first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 321-334 next last

    Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

    Free Republic
    Browse · Search
    News/Activism
    Topics · Post Article

    FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
    FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson